So I've noticed some Talents that I liked from previous incarnations of our beloved game are missing in Dark Heresy 2.

Like Talented, or Paranoia. Hell, I even missed the Perform skill (Fellowship-based) until I found Trade (performancer) (Int-based).

Which talents, skills and traits were dropped that you feel should definitely be brought back?

Blather!

No, but honestly, where are the old Flamer talents?

Paranoia will be missed. One of the only easy ways to raise initiative

Unremarkable, Light Sleeper, Meditation, Disturbing Voice, Total Recall, Forsight, and oh god I didn't even realize how many talents were gone until I started reading OW's list. Why were they all removed? Especially since these are the more narrative talents? Whatever, they are still perfectly there in OW, jut a little weird

I'm also really hoping that they go the Only War route, and have new talents in each supplement.

One thing to consider is to just homebrew them in, most of these can be easily classified.

I'm also really hoping that they go the Only War route, and have new talents in each supplement.

I'm hoping it's actually new talents, and not just recycled old ones.

So I've noticed some Talents that I liked from previous incarnations of our beloved game are missing in Dark Heresy 2.

Like Talented, or Paranoia. Hell, I even missed the Perform skill (Fellowship-based) until I found Trade (performancer) (Int-based).

Which talents, skills and traits were dropped that you feel should definitely be brought back?

I think Talented is accounted for by the addition of a potential +30 bonus to a skill- Mastery has taken its place, as well.

Paranoia in a character is probably best represented as a Mental Trauma- rather than a talent with objective bonuses. Constant Vigilance also gives the same bonus as Paranoia but with some added options.

For Trade (Performancer), I'd recommend looking at the Alternate Characteristic sub-header in the Skills section on page 96.

Paranoia had the issue of requiring the GM to remember it and allow a roll any time he's about to make a surprise. It's also assuming that the GM is surprising the group with things that no one else would be allowed to roll for. Basically it's assuming a certain kind of play style that is t enforced by the rest of the game. The extra initiative is fine, though.

I'm glad that they at least stuck with the reduced number of skills, although I wish they'd gone with the skill system from the beta that reduced tem further and allowed multiple attributes to be used.

Argh no idea how this quoting works. But yeah indeed, the more narrative and colourful talents were all deleted. Now it's all very combat-oriented and gamefied.

Argh no idea how this quoting works. But yeah indeed, the more narrative and colourful talents were all deleted. Now it's all very combat-oriented and gamefied.

That is how most games are designed nowadays. Ever since 3.5 ed. D & D most games talents and skills are mechanically defined. I would say that given that Narrative gaming in DH also has some mechanical definition, this is not a bad thing!

Is there anything that stops someone that owns Only War from directly porting in the missing Talents? They already have Aptitudes listed, so it doesn't look like anything would need to be changed excepting those that deal with Requisition and/or psychic abilities.

Nothing's stopping that, which is why it was made backwards compatible I reckon.

Argh no idea how this quoting works. But yeah indeed, the more narrative and colourful talents were all deleted. Now it's all very combat-oriented and gamefied.

That is how most games are designed nowadays. Ever since 3.5 ed. D & D most games talents and skills are mechanically defined. I would say that given that Narrative gaming in DH also has some mechanical definition, this is not a bad thing!

The reason why this comes up is that gameplay benefits are pretty much always preferable to narrative ones. It's what would be called a "strictly dominated" strategy in game theory (a strategy that is always worse than another if you're playing rationally). The problem is that RPGs are often an awkward mix of game and story rather than a smooth hybrid, where the game part tends to be what keeps your character alive or allows them to have effects on the world. Basically, unless narrative talents are on par with mechanical ones, there's no sense in taking them.

I, for one, like to take advancements which are hardly optimal (if at all) but fit the character.

I miss meditation as well, it was a good way to rid yourself of fatigue.

Not to mention a wee bit overpowered, I am personally glad to see it gone.

I, for one, like to take advancements which are hardly optimal (if at all) but fit the character.

There's nothing wrong with this, but do you concede that if these options were made to be good for whomever picked them, that it would be better for everyone?

There's nothing wrong with this, but do you concede that if these options were made to be good for whomever picked them, that it would be better for everyone?

Why would he have to concede that point? It'd be better for everyone, but the person with the character concept in mind.

There's nothing wrong with this, but do you concede that if these options were made to be good for whomever picked them, that it would be better for everyone?

Why would he have to concede that point? It'd be better for everyone, but the person with the character concept in mind.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding. I'm saying that the talent would be better if it maintained the same narrative context while also being mechanically equivalent to other powers. Unless someone's character concept is "worse than everyone else," it works out better for everyone.

And I ask for him to concede the point because replying to an argument of "some talents suck and this is bad" with "well I pick those anyway because I like their flavor" is not actually addressing the point of some talents sucking and being bad options.

Must have, as I felt you were implying he had to choose "good" talents regardless of how he felt a talent would reflect on his character in terms of how it is being develped.

Must have, as I felt you were implying he had to choose "good" talents regardless of how he felt a talent would reflect on his character in terms of how it is being develped.

I implies that "good" talents incentivize players to choose them over ones that benefit roleplay. Thus, all talents should be good so that people don't have to choose between roleplay and a mechanically better talent.

Maybe this whole gamefied approach has gotten too far (wildly off-topic). I LOLed when I read that nowadays players stuck in an investigation can buy clues from their GM with a Fate Point. We've kind of drifted from an approach where the rules were just a base needed to tell a story to a more computer game-like stance of things.

Maybe this whole gamefied approach has gotten too far (wildly off-topic). I LOLed when I read that nowadays players stuck in an investigation can buy clues from their GM with a Fate Point. We've kind of drifted from an approach where the rules were just a base needed to tell a story to a more computer game-like stance of things.

yeah and the seeker can use a fate point to succeed awareness.

GM: Roll awareness!

Player: ****, failed. I spend a fate point to succeed!

GM: Great, you see a rat scurry over in the corner!

or if the GM rolls in secret, what then? :-)

Maybe this whole gamefied approach has gotten too far (wildly off-topic). I LOLed when I read that nowadays players stuck in an investigation can buy clues from their GM with a Fate Point. We've kind of drifted from an approach where the rules were just a base needed to tell a story to a more computer game-like stance of things.

Drifted too far from what? I certainly wouldn't count dark Heresy as providing "just a base." What games are you basing this statement off of?

Maybe this whole gamefied approach has gotten too far (wildly off-topic). I LOLed when I read that nowadays players stuck in an investigation can buy clues from their GM with a Fate Point. We've kind of drifted from an approach where the rules were just a base needed to tell a story to a more computer game-like stance of things.

yeah and the seeker can use a fate point to succeed awareness.

GM: Roll awareness!

Player: ****, failed. I spend a fate point to succeed!

GM: Great, you see a rat scurry over in the corner!

or if the GM rolls in secret, what then? :-)

How do those outcomes functionally differ from old DH where you could spend a FP to reroll?

How do those outcomes functionally differ from old DH where you could spend a FP to reroll?

Spending a fate point to succeed an awareness check is not very attractive, at least not in those games I play in as awareness checks are rather common and knowing when it is important to succeed is not easy to know in advantage. Rather save the fate point for the inevitable willpower check.

YMMV

How do those outcomes functionally differ from old DH where you could spend a FP to reroll?

Spending a fate point to succeed an awareness check is not very attractive, at least not in those games I play in as awareness checks are rather common and knowing when it is important to succeed is not easy to know in advantage. Rather save the fate point for the inevitable willpower check.

YMMV

Not really much different than a reroll then! As a side note: It's not a talent or skill but I notice the rules for high speed chases are missing in the core book. Did I miss it somewhere? They are alluded to under the "Cruise speed" description but are not anywhere I can find! You would think this would be far more common in DH2 than the pitched vehicle battles that happen in OW!